On 28 Jan 2012 at 6:17pm Alfie Stirling wrote:
Did you know:
That UK unemployment stands at 2.68million (17 year high)
That UK youth unemployment stands at at over 1million (highest since records begun)
That UK child poverty stands at 3.8 million (1 in 3)
That the UK budget deficit is £127billion
That the profit made by the UK‚??s richest 100 people -- 0.003% of the population -- between 2009 and 2011 was ¬£137billion
That there is simply no alternative to Lib-Lab-Con's fiscal austerity?
On 28 Jan 2012 at 8:32pm bastian wrote:
sadly alfie, yes I do know, but this forum is smattered with I'm alright jacks, and 2I didn't get where I am today" types. they don't care...because they have a spare flat as a pension that you and your chums can't afford to live in. I know you're a local lad, get your political brain in gear, you chaps are going to need it.
On 28 Jan 2012 at 9:18pm Dingbat wrote:
Lucky we are not Spain. 25% unemployment. Yikes!
On 29 Jan 2012 at 7:36am Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
A friend of mine, who had a house in Spain for a while and was frequently in despair at the impossibility of getting anyone to fix anything, is firmly of the opinion that
Spaniards are all lazy skivers.
When something came on the radio about the Spanish unemployment rates, he shook his head and asked "How on earth can they tell?".
On 29 Jan 2012 at 8:20am DFL wrote:
...that you can flatten a ghost with a spirit level ?
On 29 Jan 2012 at 2:37pm Paul Newman wrote:
The first statement is lie.This is the UK rich list and as you will see in a year they have increased their worth about £40 billion and as you will also see , practically all this was not earnt in the UK and so is not available to tax in the UK .The main reason for this has been the inflation in the cost of raw materials , like steel and oil
What do you what to do , genius, invade India and Russia ?
Check it out here »
On 29 Jan 2012 at 3:41pm bastian wrote:
paul you really are a prat aren't you.
My wage hasn't increased by a peny since 2009 and will not now until 2015 or 2020.
I have no sympathy at all for anyone on the rich list.
On 29 Jan 2012 at 7:34pm Alfie Stirling wrote:
@ Newman: Source for first statement was: ONS, Economic Review (Jan 2012)
Check it out here »
On 29 Jan 2012 at 8:13pm Selfish landlord wrote:
How rude you are bastian. Icant be bothered any more. Just switched to this debate to see your comment obviously aimed at me which shows you don't actually take anything in unless it fits with your preexisting worldview.
And calling Paul a prat is out of order. At least he's up for a discussion.
Back to twirling my comedy moustache and wiping my feet on tenants. I'll never convince you otherwise.
I hope that whatever it is that you do you contribute to society. I know I do.
On 29 Jan 2012 at 8:15pm Paul Newman wrote:
I am well aware of the current level of unemployment, Alf, which is nothing to cheer about ,but; it is only 7% higher than when the coalition came to office. At that time Brown was still borrowing like gang busters storing up difficult decisions for the next administration.Your crapola about the richest 100 was a lie and a stupid one at that.
If public spending , adjusted for inflation was at 97 levels we could all stop paying income tax , the receipts of income tax a roughly cover social spending (welfare). 25£ of this is paid by the top 1%(275000)..just numbers .
On 30 Jan 2012 at 12:15am grafter wrote:
Bastian, if you can't get a pay rise why don't you change your job,its not illegal you know. If 11plus failures like me can make £50k doing manual work why don't you get your hands dirty instead of wallowing in self-pity. There are 168 hours in a week,if you cut out tv and venting crap like I am now you could study and get a better job or take on another part time one. You may have noticed that there are still people about who can afford houses in Lewes,if you can offer them a service you might well prosper. Then again maybe you will turn into a pumpkin if you work more than 8 hours a day?
On 30 Jan 2012 at 10:30am bastian wrote:
to selfish landlord..no I wasn't pointing that at you, you must not fall for paranoia
to grafter, you know nothing of my circumstances, I am not self pitying just making a point. You do not know me or anything about me so don't jump to conclusions.
instead of bickering, why don't you all answer Alfies post.
On 30 Jan 2012 at 12:52pm Alfie Stirling wrote:
It's easy to call someone a liar but have you got any substantive evidence to back that up? The details I gave came from the 100-page Rich List compiled by Philip Beresford.
I believe your stats are wrong by any feasible numerical stretch: If you're interested, see this publication by the New Political Economy Network (NPEN):
Check it out here »
On 30 Jan 2012 at 12:57pm Selfish landlord wrote:
That's rubbish bastian. You're not very subtle.
So you really think that ALL housing should be owned by the state.
You still can't answer any of my previous posts, and have failed to understand that someone can think differently without being a top hatted capitalist.
I actually agree with Alfie and I'm active politically including supporting the occupy movement.
Get out of your tunnel. It's affecting your thinking.
On 30 Jan 2012 at 1:17pm bastian wrote:
frankly yes I do think housing should be owned by the state but then I believe that gas, oil, trains,hospitals wind farms, electric, airlines and ports should be owned by the state for the state....was that subtle enough/or is that too radical..we have to keep capital at bay or it goes insane, as it is now..I do not want you to be in fear of your future.
On 30 Jan 2012 at 5:56pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
I'd add banks, insurance companies and water to that list, too, Bastian.
On 30 Jan 2012 at 8:29pm Paul Newman wrote:
Not my stats Alf just the rich list and it can`t be that far out as most of the wealth is in the hands of a few well known individuals whose earnings are definitely not in the UK. Of course if you mean three years it would be notionally about right ( if highly misleading ) but its quite irrelevant almost none of this is taxable in the UK and anyway it could not be taxes in the Uk even if it were because it would move.( Google Laffer curve and IFS )
You have linked to some Compass thing ( Compass pleeeeze...) whose opening claim to wide support looks a bit silly (Not from any political party anyone votes for ).I see they are quoting the 70s approvingly and suggesting we are under-borrowed ....well its so out there its drowning.
Out of interest are you actually a Labour Party supporter ? I was just wondering if this is the sort of thing they privately think ?
Are you ?
I mean I think its childish gibberish but its rather more important that you don`t , after all McLuskey probably agrees and he did buy Ed the Labour Party.
On 30 Jan 2012 at 8:31pm Selfish landlord wrote:
ok - you're communists then. There's no room for agreement about the property part of it. If you own your own property you are hypocrites.
Btw the tenants who trashed my mum's place were communists who left to live in communist russia. I often wonder what happened to them. That worked out well, didn't it.
I agree with you about utilities though, and most of the other industries. However I have to live in the real world as I don't work for the public sector.
I did support public sector workers in their action, however you guys have made me change my mind. It's left you too out of touch with the rest of us.
Still not helping me to survive immenent old age in the real world.
Still not holding up your own lives for scrutiny.
At least act and Bastian answer these questions:
Do you own property?
Do you work for the public sector?
You guys remind me of the SWP people I knew in my youth. They just seemed to have a badly hidden thing for working class men. Their papers were full of articles about sweaty miners. Nothing wrong with liking working class men, mind.
Bastian you are as radical as citizen smith. Power to the tooting popular front!
On 30 Jan 2012 at 8:40pm Paul Newman wrote:
Ha ha , well I guess you could all go and live in Cuba . We`ll get by.
On 30 Jan 2012 at 9:16pm crodiemedript wrote:
On 31 Jan 2012 at 7:57am Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
I haven't seen anything on here that's consistent with the SWP class war line and am fiercely opposed to that because of their views on women's rights and so on.
I have no issue with anyone owning their house, I have a problem with those who contribute to overpriced housing by owning more than one and then fleece tenants.
I don't think people who work in the public sector form their views because of their employment. If anything, people who are generally in favour of redistributive social and economic policies and social justice opt to work in the public sector because they want to contribute to the general good.
On 31 Jan 2012 at 10:54am selfish landlord wrote:
Ok - so you own your own home and work in the public sector.
You guys don't have to face reality - yet. Maybe when the nice pensions have totally disappeared you'll understand.
Answer me this then -
If you had some extra money, a sizable amount - what would you do with it?
Contribute it to the public good?
Now try and think about what you would do if you didn't have a nice public sector pension.
And please please please finally answer my question about who should own the houses that people want to rent.
You never answer a straight question, do you?
ACT - will you look after me in my old age?
On 31 Jan 2012 at 1:10pm Independent Thinker wrote:
Selfish Landlord, there are loads of options for how you could invest your money to provide for your retirement. If you are ruling out setting up a pension (seems a crazy decision to dismiss all the options out there, have you met with a good IFA to really talk through what's out there?). How about putting together your own tailored share portfolio? Make sure it's a mix of risk levels. Set aside an affordable amount for higher risk, higher return investments. The bulk in safer "blue chip" investments which perform well even in recessions. And alter the ratio in favour of low risk investments the closer you get to retirement age. Hunt around for share bargains that you get in times like this where good, stable companies find their share prices dragged down artificially and are set to bounce back when (eventually) the economy picks up again. Or go for alternative investments like wine, collectable toys, art and the like. Always a market for those as there are lots of people with money that needs investing. There's also the new mini EIS scheme for angel investors that gives you 50% back on your investment in qualifying startup companies, so you get £1 of shares for only 50p, as well as other advantages which could bring your at risk amount down to as little as 25p in the pound. A chance to do some good by supporting new hopefully job creating businesses, have fun, and potentially make some serious money as you can carefully select which businesses to invest in and judge the level of risk you're comfortable with.
Or were you only asking for suggestions as a rhetorical device and aren't really interested in alternatives to buying up additional properties in a housing shortage and renting them out to people who would rather buy if they could afford it, but can't because of the lack of affordable housing? And just to be clear, I'm not condemning all landlords, or you in particular, but I do feel that the growth of people doing what you're doing is not sustainable in the long run and isn't fair on young people desperate to get on the property ladder. Buying your own home and paying off your mortgage before retirement puts you massively ahead of those who have only been able to rent all their lives, and provides a level of security that many young people will only be able to dream about.
On 31 Jan 2012 at 2:37pm Selfish landlord wrote:
Ha ha ha. Last time I dealt with an IFA I ended up with 2 products, a pension that was unsuitable for my original trade and that I then had to give up a couple of years later and an endowment policy that was less value than keeping the money in a sock for 20 yes.
I'm not going to have anything more to do with shares. Even if they weren't so risky, which they are, whatever you say, I just don't understand them. And from what I've seen nor does anyone else.
Invest in startup companies? I am risk averse, near to retirement and have no other means of support.
On 31 Jan 2012 at 2:50pm selfish landlord wrote:
Your next point about it being a rhetorical question. Well yes, it is a bit because I've already thought long and hard. I'd love to be able to trust a pension. If you think that being a landlord is an easy option you are wrong.
It has already made me ill with stress and at points completely terrified.
Blame the financial services industry for their collossal mess, not amateur landlords who don't see any other possibilities for investment.
STILL NO ONE WILL ANSWER MY POINT ABOUT WHO SHOULD OWN PROPERTY THAT OTHER PEOPLE WANT TO RENT- Except bastian who thinks it should all be owned by the state
Is that your view? If not, what?
On 31 Jan 2012 at 4:07pm bastian wrote:
regulated housing co-ops if you MUST have have an ownership but the rent must be fixed at the local earnings rate and not be benefitting anyone but the tenants, money from rentmust be reinvested.These associations can belong to developers if you want but with no clauses for them to sell from under their tenants or when they decide a return is in order.
It's called long term investment and thinking
something capitalists are not in favour of..a stable community can organise itself and that is dangerous.
On 31 Jan 2012 at 5:07pm Selfish landlord wrote:
Bastian you are about as dangerous as a puppy.
Not going to work because it's not what most people want and is full of holes. Why the he'll should these developers be involved if they don't receive any benefit.
It also still doesn't help me in the real world that exists now.
This is the stuff of adolescent debating societies.
On 2 Feb 2012 at 4:01pm bastian wrote:
as usual, if you give some people enough rope they either trip up or hang themselves.
On 2 Feb 2012 at 5:30pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
If being a landlord makes you ill, perhaps you should ask yourself if you're constitutionally suited to it, SL.
I think being unable to make wise choices about investments is a bit of a thin excuse for making a living out of what is a basic human right, tbh.
Properties for rent should be owned by registered social landlords, ie housing associations, local authorities or co-ops. They should be let at fair rents and income ring fenced to cover costs, with any surplus used bo build more homes.
I'd also like to see any development of more than 5 homes required to make 20% of properties built available to social landlords.
As a result we would have communities that are both more cohesive and more diverse. People wouldn't have to move at the whim of a landlord and those in housing need would be spread throughout communities, rather than concentrated on estates.
On 5 Feb 2012 at 2:55pm SL wrote:
Bastian . Do you mean you? If so, I agree.
Act. You really are a bit smug and judgemental aren't you?
Try and leave your blinkers behind for a minute.
I became a landlord because I felt I had no choice. Do you still not get that? I've said already that I'd rather rely on a pension.
As for playing the stock exchange, that's what it is. Playing.
It's not a question of being able to make wise choices about investment. It's about no one understanding what they are investing in. Even the people who are paid millions to do so. So why would I be able to do better? Even my financial advisor gave bad advice.
You have done the impossible. I will now argue for public sector workers to lose their pensions. You need to wake up.
As for all rentals being owned by housing association. Good luck with that.
Up the lewes popular front!
On 6 Feb 2012 at 2:18pm bastian wrote:
I don't know about you ACT but that sounded a little bit smug and very judgemental.